http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14882146

Hurrah!

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Yes, Hurray maybe. But I find some of this disingenuous,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14829373

"Think of the hard-up session musicians not Cliff Richard," he told me, claiming that thousands of struggling artists would now be guaranteed a pension."

Since when did session musicians ever get rights to their performances? And even if they did, how would they propose to implement this, let alone enforce it? I can understand if they were awarded composer's rights but then they're already covered.

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

There's a painful amount of ignorance on what the "phonographic copyright" (copyright in the sound recording) and the "performer right" (broadcast royalty that musicians get when a recording they're on is broadcast) actually are.

That BBC article is littered with confused phrasing.


I obviously welcome the extension of the term by a further 20 years (although it's still rubbish compared to songwriter & literary copyright, which is generally for 90 years AFTER THE WRITER'S DEATH!)

The problem is practice is that PPL are a bunch of total moomins, and the notion that session musicians will be earning "a pension" from PPL Performer royalties is farcical.

The fact is that the PPL's IT systems have been in such a shambles for the past 10 years that barely anyone has been getting anything.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

There's a painful amount of ignorance on what the "phonographic copyright" (copyright in the sound recording) and the "performer right" (broadcast royalty that musicians get when a recording they're on is broadcast) actually are.

---

Indeed. But to say session musicians who have signed their rights away will now be compensated by a fund set up by the labels is absurd. But good luck to them. I hear Nick Mason needs some more motors so this should help...

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

they won't - who said that?

They'll just (in principle) get airplay royalties when the track is broadcast.
(if PPL have their bank account details. And the record label has registered all the tracks data correctly. About five times. And rung up 'craig' at PPL every month to get it all sorted out. And so on).

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

they won't - who said that?

---

The new law also includes a number of provisions designed to ensure that musicians see a fair proportion of the extra income, including a fund for musicians who signed away their rights when a recording was made.

The fund will be financed by record labels, who put aside a percentage of the benefits they get from the prolonged copyright.

From the article in the OP.

I was trying to find a link for the actual EU directive which I was perusing earlier but gave up on Google. It says the same thing though.

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

There's a lot of fudgery going on here (though Mike Batt was very good, and polite, on BBC Breakfast News this morning).

It's not all good, it's not all bad. Cliff will survive, as will the other campaigners. And it's hard to think of many hard-done-by musos over the years who made something 50+ years ago, the classic one-hit wonder situation, who now need the extra money in their 70s or 80s to supplement their state pensions. (Though if there are a few in that position, good luck to them).

But what I like is the EU-delivered slap in the face to pirates and downloaders who assume copyright should and must be weakened, not strengthened, solely because technology permits that.

Having legislated, it is now incumbent on the EU to enforce its own legislation. Rigorously.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote ken long:

---

The new law also includes a number of provisions designed to ensure that musicians see a fair proportion of the extra income, including a fund for musicians who signed away their rights when a recording was made.

The fund will be financed by record labels, who put aside a percentage of the benefits they get from the prolonged copyright.

---

Oh right! Well, if the majors are going to do that, then fair enough! They'll probably administer it a lot better than PPL would!

One of the most facepalmy things I keep hearing is that "it'll only benefit the big artists" - this is utter drivel - the PPL royalty rate is the same for everyone, so Cliff Richard earns just as much money from having one of his vocals broadcast on Radio 2 as I would. Quite a simple concept, which the genius commentators on the news seem unable to grasp.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote Steve Hill:

---

But what I like is the EU-delivered slap in the face to pirates and downloaders who assume copyright should and must be weakened, not strengthened, solely because technology permits that.

---

That's a nice thought - tho' I can imagine some people (more cynical than me) wondering if the EU figures this extension means they're seen to be doing something.

Quote chris...:

---

I can imagine some people (more cynical than me)...

---

I find it hard to imagine people more cynical than you, Chris

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote feline1:

---

.... the PPL royalty rate is the same for everyone, so Cliff Richard earns just as much money from having one of his vocals broadcast on Radio 2 as I would. Quite a simple concept, which the genius commentators on the news seem unable to grasp.

---

So how much do you earn from one of Cliff Richards vocals being broadcast on Radio 2?

hah hah

But PRS did once pay me £168 for someone else's advert being broadcast on HTV Wales

(then they decided they wanted it back and so my PRS account has been overdrawn ever since )

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

There's a painful amount of ignorance on what the "phonographic copyright" (copyright in the sound recording) and the "performer right" (broadcast royalty that musicians get when a recording they're on is broadcast) actually are.

---

This is so true - I read this article yesterday, arguing that extending copyright 'harms creativity' and quoting examples that have nothing whatsoever to the copyright in recorded work:

Led Zep 'borrowing' from old blues songs (that's publishing)
James Joyces Ulysses (!)
'much of the work of Walt Disney' (because he re-worked existing stories?)
Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet (!)
the 'many modern pop songs that rely on Pachelbel's Canon' (!)

And there is a vocal Twitter community led by Graham Linehan (sitcom writer), who seem to think everything should be in the public domain and this would lead to flourishing creativity. And the example HE quotes was Neil Hannon doing a musical setting of a Shakespeare sonnet! Which again has nothing to do with recorded material.

I wonder how Graham Linehan would feel if I used a recording of one of his sitcoms to create a new sitcom, and sold it as an original work... perhaps he would applaud it, I'm not sure...

Ben

--------------------
The large print giveth and the small print taketh away

Quote BenLD:

---

Led Zep 'borrowing' from old blues songs (that's publishing)

---

Could you expand on this please?

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

Quote ken long:

---

Quote BenLD:

---

Led Zep 'borrowing' from old blues songs (that's publishing)

---

Could you expand on this please?

---

Leaving aside the actual songs of Led Zep, if you or I record a song that plagiarizes another songwriter's work, we would be infringing their publishing rights as the original writer of the work. Publishing rights already extend to 70 years beyond the life of the composer. Publishing rights are a form of copyright, but they are nothing to do with this new legislation.

This bill applies to copyright in recordings (mechanical copyright), so would only apply if we (or Led Zep!) used a sample of someone else's actual recording.

This is where people seem to be getting confused it seems...

Ben

--------------------
The large print giveth and the small print taketh away

BBC:

Quote:

---

It became known as the Cliff Richard law, because it promised to make sure the veteran rocker would go on earning money from 60s hits like Living Doll for many years to come.

---

Except Lionel Bart wrote that. Cliff was never really a song writer, so im not sure how much he stands to benefit from this extended copyright deal himself. However, many of the people that wrote his songs are also his friends, so I guess it is cool that he supports them and other musicians by spearheading this campaign to extend copyrights.

Cliff isn't such a bad chap really

--------------------
Paul

it's not about SONGS, ffs!

The copyright in SONGS *already* extends until NINETY YEARS AFTER THE WRITER'S DEATH, and has done for over a century!

This is about the copyright in a *sound recording* and the recorded performance of the musicians in it.

Now write that out 200 times!

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

it's not about SONGS, ffs!

The copyright in SONGS *already* extends until NINETY YEARS AFTER THE WRITER'S DEATH, and has done for over a century!

---

I thought it was 70 years?

Money aside, there's a moral dimension to this. As I wrote elsewhere, Cliff is less of a militant atheist than I am and may well subscribe to some Christian virtues.

Without this change there is at least a theoretical prospect of somebody using his recording of Living Doll to accompany say an advertising campaign for inflatable sex toys. Love him or loathe him, surely he has the right not to have to spend his dotage enduring that?

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Without this change there is at least a theoretical prospect of somebody using his recording of Living Doll to accompany say an advertising campaign for inflatable sex toys. Love him or loathe him, surely he has the right not to have to spend his dotage enduring that?

---

Well - 'moral rights' in publishing contracts are a whole different kettle .. not your point, I know .. and of course, Cliff I'm sure has retained a certain amount of, or total over riding moral rights (I've no idea) ... but I sign away moral rights on everything ..

Edited by blue manga (14/09/11 10:01 PM)

Quote feline1:

---

it's not about SONGS, ffs!

The copyright in SONGS *already* extends until NINETY YEARS AFTER THE WRITER'S DEATH, and has done for over a century!

This is about the copyright in a *sound recording* and the recorded performance of the musicians in it.

Now write that out 200 times!

---

Christ, could you be any more of a pompous dick? But thanks for the tip anyway.
Here's a tip from me regarding all of your PRS/MCPS/PPL threads.. You'll find they'll look after you rather better once they actually owe you something.

--------------------
Paul

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Money aside, there's a moral dimension to this.

---

I understand your point Steve Hill.
But, 'Livin doll' is a misogynistic piece of 60s shite.

--------------------
.. is this thing on?

Quote Stan:

---

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Money aside, there's a moral dimension to this.

---

I understand your point Steve Hill.
But, 'Livin doll' is a misogynistic piece of 60s shite.

---

Ah, but how about 'Move It', now then... that's shut you up eh?

Classic!



--------------------

Move it? Pickfords advert, I suspect....

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote ~Paul:

---

Quote feline1:

---

it's not about SONGS, ffs!

The copyright in SONGS *already* extends until NINETY YEARS AFTER THE WRITER'S DEATH, and has done for over a century!

This is about the copyright in a *sound recording* and the recorded performance of the musicians in it.

Now write that out 200 times!

---

Christ, could you be any more of a pompous dick? But thanks for the tip anyway.
Here's a tip from me regarding all of your PRS/MCPS/PPL threads.. You'll find they'll look after you rather better once they actually owe you something.

---

OK well that's FINE then.
(Of course, the fact that I've missed out on about half of what I am owed so far precisely because of the sorts of administrative egregiousness mentioned in those threads is by the by...)

PS. I literally did of course want you to write out 200 lines. There was no humour indicated there at all.
And it is of no concern to us whatsoever that the vast majority of people who speak on this issue (never mind legislate on it) are utterly clueless as to the detail (or, indeed, the basic concepts). Thus there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to be exasperated.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Money aside, there's a moral dimension to this. As I wrote elsewhere, Cliff is less of a militant atheist than I am and may well subscribe to some Christian virtues.

Without this change there is at least a theoretical prospect of somebody using his recording of Living Doll to accompany say an advertising campaign for inflatable sex toys. Love him or loathe him, surely he has the right not to have to spend his dotage enduring that?

---

Well don't worry - thanks to this legislation, even if Cliff snuffs it, the gay vicar he lives with will be able to safeguard his moral rights for decades to come.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote ~Paul:

---

Quote feline1:

---

---

Here's a tip from me regarding all of your PRS/MCPS/PPL threads.. You'll find they'll look after you rather better once they actually owe you something.

---

Ouch

Quote johnny h:

---

Ouch

---

you can piss off, you troll.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Ouch

---

you can piss off, you troll.

---

Brilliant comeback, feline.

Perhaps in the next sound on sound revamp we can create a separate 'feline moaning about his lack of monetary rewards from music' forum to give this one a break...

seriously though, do [ ****** ] off.

With all due deference to the forum mods, you persistently troll mine and others' threads with your asinine snide comments, and are clearly a total dick. (And, notwithstanding that, demonstrably factually wrong in your characterisation of my critiques of dysfunction IT systems and bureacracy of collection societies).

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

my critiques of dysfunction IT systems and bureacracy of collection societies).

---

Translation: "where's the f***in phone numba?"

Quote Sue Dunnim:

---

Quote feline1:

---

my critiques of dysfunction IT systems and bureacracy of collection societies).

---

Translation: "where's the f***in phone numba?"

---

Who are you, JohnH's mum?

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

Quote Sue Dunnim:

---

Quote feline1:

---

my critiques of dysfunction IT systems and bureacracy of collection societies).

---

Translation: "where's the f***in phone numba?"

---

Who are you, JohnH's mum?

---

Close, auntie.

and salon gorgeous with it, no doubt. Chair-worthy hair all round.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

and salon gorgeous with it, no doubt. Chair-worthy hair all round.

---

Brylcream pal, Brylcream

Quote ~Paul:

---

BBC:

Quote:

---

It became known as the Cliff Richard law, because it promised to make sure the veteran rocker would go on earning money from 60s hits like Living Doll for many years to come.

---

Except Lionel Bart wrote that. Cliff was never really a song writer, so im not sure how much he stands to benefit from this extended copyright deal himself. However, many of the people that wrote his songs are also his friends, so I guess it is cool that he supports them and other musicians by spearheading this campaign to extend copyrights.

Cliff isn't such a bad chap really

---

Can't believe you posted this right after my post about publishing rights! The WHOLE POINT is that Cliff Richard didn't write his own songs, so he's one of the artists most affected - he ONLY has rights in the recordings.

Why is everyone so confused about this even on a music forum? No wonder the journalists keep getting it wrong.

On a side note, Noel Gallagher was quoted as saying he didn't care about this issue (the assumption being that the real money was in the publishing, as he wrote all the songs). I wonder what Liam would have said.

B

--------------------
The large print giveth and the small print taketh away

Gentle warning on a Friday afternoon chaps. Please re-read the forum rules, specifically rule 2. There's really no need for the personal abuse, regardless of the exasperation anyone might be feeling.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Hugh, with all due respect, "jonnyh" has been trolling up my threads with his asinine snidery on these boards for the best part of the decade now.
Perhaps you should re-read Forum Rule 1, which the moderators seem incapable of making him adhere to...


Anyways, on the subject of the thread,
I just got an MU member mailout where they declare "The MU played a key role in persuading the UK Government to back term extension" (translation from NuSpeak: "we totally failed to get the Labour government to do anything above it for over a decade, but the Tories did it within a year of coming to office" lolz

I think this is pretty important though: "A requirement for labels to make sure all recordings are commercially available, failing which the artist will be entitled to release their recordings themselves."
There's a vast amount of languishing back-catalogue out there that's been deleted. That artists will have the legal write to get back the master tapes (?) and put it out with a digital aggregator themselves is brilliant.
I mean I know even a lot of my fave 70s/80s acts, they'll have fans pestering them on their sites to get obscure B-sides etc released, and the answer usually comes back "Sorry but it's all at the mercy of Virgin/EMI/Sony/etc etc"... this would mean stuff like this can finally be released if the artist wants.

And what about all those radio sessions? Bands that want their Peel Session or "In Concert" or whatever put out - if the BBC doesn't do it, does this mean the band can ask for the rights themselves? Or will a radio session like that not count?

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

I think this is pretty important though: "A requirement for labels to make sure all recordings are commercially available, failing which the artist will be entitled to release their recordings themselves."

---

Interesting...

Quote:

---

And what about all those radio sessions? Bands that want their Peel Session or "In Concert" or whatever put out - if the BBC doesn't do it, does this mean the band can ask for the rights themselves?

---

Interesting...

Quote chris...:

---

Quote feline1:

---

I think this is pretty important though: "A requirement for labels to make sure all recordings are commercially available, failing which the artist will be entitled to release their recordings themselves."

---

Interesting...

Quote:

---

And what about all those radio sessions? Bands that want their Peel Session or "In Concert" or whatever put out - if the BBC doesn't do it, does this mean the band can ask for the rights themselves?

---

Interesting...

---

And what then if the masters/recordings are lost or destroyed? Can the artist then claim redress under this new legislation under such circumstances? My guess would be not but that would make it rather easy for the record company/BBC etc. to just say 'sorry mate, long gone'. Even if just to save themselves the task of simply digging the stuff out.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

yeah that would suck - but it would mean the artist could in that circumstance remaster them from vinyl or off-air recordings, at the very least. Which is better than a poke in the eye. Maybe.

(Actually I guess I am in that situation myself with a radio session I did for an ITV local station in the 1990s. I did try several times to licence the recordings, but in the end just got some "oh we had a clearout, the DJ took some reel-to-reels home to keep in his attic, but we don't have them any more") - I'd wondered about the legality of me releasing remastered off-air copies (not that they'd probably ever have known, but all the same).
Looks like I can now do so with impunity in any case?

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote Frisonic:

---

My guess would be not but that would make it rather easy for the record company/BBC etc. to just say 'sorry mate, long gone'. Even if just to save themselves the task of simply digging the stuff out.

---

I'd imagine, in many cases, the artist would have perfectly good copy themselves.

E.g in the case of a deleted CD, the artist has copy, many punters have copy, and indeed copies may be circulating illegally on filesharing networks. But new fans can't legally buy a copy. Until now.

yeah, there are tons and tons of albums and releases in that state -

even ones where a CD was issued, but of course is long long since out of print.

There's no realistic prospect of new CDs being pressed, but a digital release would be highly appropriate....... but the record company can't be arsed (or have gone out of business, or been bought out several times over)

In fact, if all goes well, this really could see us finally move to what the internet SHOULD have meant, which is "all of music" being available in a wonderful online library, with no packaging, storage, physical distribution overheads, with means in place to remunerate the artists.

One might very well argue that the filesharing mania which started in the late 90s happened because "the kids" and music fans immediately and intuitively grasped this concept (i.e. that any music you wanted, no matter how obscure or niche, could be available and distributed for zero cost) but the industry failed to.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Fighting talk - it'll never catch on!

I'm wondering if it was mostly music fans that started it (filesharing), and then "the kids" cottoned on.

well, I know when I was music-loving kid in the late 80s/early 90s, I'd buy "record collector" magazine, I'd go to record fairs, I'd get some other little A5 publication, forget what it was called - "old gold" or something perhaps - basically had endless lists of old deleted stuff for sale.....
...a lot of my mates were into doing all this too - we were endlessly trying to get our mits on all this old deleted stuff by bands we liked or had heard of...

...by the end of the 90s, all that stuff was on Napster! So it seems obvious the demand was there in the music community to be able to get their hands on more than just the latest Shitney Houston album.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote chris...:

---

Quote feline1:

---

I think this is pretty important though: "A requirement for labels to make sure all recordings are commercially available, failing which the artist will be entitled to release their recordings themselves."

---

Interesting...

Quote:

---

And what about all those radio sessions? Bands that want their Peel Session or "In Concert" or whatever put out - if the BBC doesn't do it, does this mean the band can ask for the rights themselves?

---

Interesting...

---

Agreed, very interesting on all counts. For a few years now I've been thinking about something like this. Use it or Lose it. If you own it and can exploit it, go ahead. But if you can't or won't, then stand back and let someone else give it a go.

Andy

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.

Quote feline1:

---

seriously though, do [ ****** ] off.

With all due deference to the forum mods, you persistently troll mine and others' threads with your asinine snide comments, and are clearly a total dick. (And, notwithstanding that, demonstrably factually wrong in your characterisation of my critiques of dysfunction IT systems and bureacracy of collection societies).

---

I think this is very unfair, Feline. I never even open your threads.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extension-cliffs-law -beatles

This awful article in the Grauniad could also do with addressing. Please comment.

Quote johnny h:

---

I think this is very unfair, Feline. I never even open your threads.

---

Oh, and you're an liar as well. Anything else?

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote MC Deli:

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/sep/15/copyright-extension-cliffs-law -beatles

This awful article in the Grauniad could also do with addressing. Please comment.

---

I wish I could, but I'm banned from the Grauniad about 4 times over and long ago ran out of email addresses

As you note, it is full of egregious inaccuracy and wrongheadedness.

The new leglislation will actually enable the poor disabled folk musician to release his own recordings AND RETAIN THE COPYRIGHT IN THEM and in his PERFORMANCE ON THEM...
rather than try to flog his public domain copies of him (which any competitor could do instead) - plus, legally, he'd still have to pay for an MCPS audio product license to press copies of them...

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

I'm banned from the Grauniad about 4 times over

---

A splendid achievement deserving of public recognition! So the Guardian actually censors its readership? Well, well. Of course we have no means of censoring the Guardian, even when they knowingly publish falsehoods which they know, for various reasons, will go unchallenged and lead their gullible readerships' thoughts in populist misdirections. Personally I wouldn't use it to line a hamster cage, any more than I would use the Daily Mail. Not fair on rodents.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

lol I am basically "a Grauniad reader" (albeit online - i never buy print newspapers),
but it is clear to me that they regularly troll the own readership - publishing a never-ending stream of articles designed to morally outrage right-thinking liberal types across the land.

This of course violated their own Comment is Free rules. Curiously I never had much success in pursuing this line of reasoning with them...

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

I think this is very unfair, Feline. I never even open your threads.

---

Oh, and you're an liar as well. Anything else?

---

Not sure why you don't believe me on this one. Perhaps this might come at quite a shock, but reading about your own personal lack of success in claiming extremely small amounts of money is actually not that interesting.

yes quite, and I'm sure the dozens of threads of mine which you haven't read, yet which curiously feature your trolling shite, are just a mass hallucination on rest of the forum users...

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote feline1:

---

lol I am basically "a Grauniad reader" (albeit online - i never buy print newspapers),
but it is clear to me that they regularly troll the own readership - publishing a never-ending stream of articles designed to morally outrage right-thinking liberal types across the land.

This of course violated their own Comment is Free rules. Curiously I never had much success in pursuing this line of reasoning with them...

---

I ended up being a moderator on a newsgroup formed by CiF regulars for this reason. Amazingly I've never been banned, but I've been moderated many times . . .

--------------------
Gear List: reverse only.

Edited by Dave Gate (17/09/11 07:27 PM)

Quote feline1:

---

yes quite, and I'm sure the dozens of threads of mine which you haven't read, yet which curiously feature your trolling shite, are just a mass hallucination on rest of the forum users...

---

I have read some of your threads. This is why I don't open them anymore. I feel you have some kind of personal thing against me. You are perfectly entitled to snarl all you want if it makes you feel any better, but in the interests of forum clutter, please direct any spit and venom to my pm where it will be promptly ignored.

My views on Komment Macht Frei, as interpreted by the moderator-kommissars at the Guardian, are unprintable. Suffice to say I've been on the naughty step a few times.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Steve Hill:

---

My views on Komment Macht Frei, as interpreted by the moderator-kommissars at the Guardian, are unprintable. Suffice to say I've been on the naughty step a few times.

---

What on earth have your views about the Guardian got to do with this thread? Have you forgotten what a dim view the mods take to this kind of self-aggrandisement? For goodness sake, at least attempt to stay on topic

Quote ex-reid:

---

Quote Steve Hill:

---

My views on Komment Macht Frei, as interpreted by the moderator-kommissars at the Guardian, are unprintable. Suffice to say I've been on the naughty step a few times.

---

What on earth have your views about the Guardian got to do with this thread? Have you forgotten what a dim view the mods take to this kind of self-aggrandisement? For goodness sake, at least attempt to stay on topic

---

Jesus, get over yourself you self-important little twat. A number of previous posts have talked about the Guardian, not least because it is running several pieces on this very topic and we are being invited to comment over there..

In a free country I'm entitled to contribute. In either forum.

Who made you chief censor round here? And why?

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Quote ex-reid:

---

Quote Steve Hill:

---

My views on Komment Macht Frei, as interpreted by the moderator-kommissars at the Guardian, are unprintable. Suffice to say I've been on the naughty step a few times.

---

What on earth have your views about the Guardian got to do with this thread? Have you forgotten what a dim view the mods take to this kind of self-aggrandisement? For goodness sake, at least attempt to stay on topic

---

Jesus, get over yourself you self-important little twat. A number of previous posts have talked about the Guardian, not least because it is running several pieces on this very topic and we are being invited to comment over there..

In a free country I'm entitled to contribute. In either forum.

Who made you chief censor round here? And why?

---

Go Steve!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Jesus, get over yourself you self-important little twat.

---

Mods, I wonder if we could do something about the constant bad language? It's all rather uneccesary and perhaps those wishing to express themseleves so assertively (some might say aggressively) could find a more suitable platform elsewhere? I would also add that the above quote is offensive to those of a religious inclination.

It is unfortunate that some individuals seem to be ignoring Hugh's gentle warning given earlier in the thread:

"Gentle warning on a Friday afternoon chaps. Please re-read the forum rules, specifically rule 2. There's really no need for the personal abuse, regardless of the exasperation anyone might be feeling."

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Quote ex-reid:

---

Quote Steve Hill:

---

My views on Komment Macht Frei, as interpreted by the moderator-kommissars at the Guardian, are unprintable. Suffice to say I've been on the naughty step a few times.

---

What on earth have your views about the Guardian got to do with this thread? Have you forgotten what a dim view the mods take to this kind of self-aggrandisement? For goodness sake, at least attempt to stay on topic

---

Jesus, get over yourself you self-important little twat. A number of previous posts have talked about the Guardian, not least because it is running several pieces on this very topic and we are being invited to comment over there..

In a free country I'm entitled to contribute. In either forum.

Who made you chief censor round here? And why?

---

Like a moth to the flame Mr. Hill - I knew I could count on you

Welcome to the cheap seats Steve - how does it feel to be thinking the exact same thoughts we all had when you were waving your big stick around these parts, not so long ago? With just one post you've made the day of sooooooo many people out there who used to frequent these parts.

Ahhh - it's the little things in life that give the most pleasure, don't you find?

Edited by ex-reid (18/09/11 07:37 AM)

I must say, I do find it rather surprising that a former mod isn't familiar with the forum rules. Specifically rule 2.

At that, a former mod who used to be a lawyer - for 30 years!

Oh, the irony.

I think it may help at this point if I quote specifically rule 2 in order to head any further rule infringements 'off at the pass', so to speak:

"Not to post material that is racist, abusive, vulgar, hateful, obscene, sexually oriented, or otherwise violative of any UK law."

I'm no expert on this but I would say the 'T' word could be associated with at least 4, possibly 5 of the above terms.

Fortunately, I know Hugh is very keen to uphold and maintain the high standards of the forum and such rule 2 digressions in the past have, quite rightly, been met with stern admonishment and even, in some cases, bannage. I hope this adherence to decent values can be maintained. After all, the integrity of the forum depends on a fair but trusty sword of truth and justice being wielded deftly yet ninja-like by those in the positions of power.

Quote Sue Dunnim:

---

I think it may help at this point if I quote specifically rule 2 in order to head any further rule infringements 'off at the pass', so to speak:

"Not to post material that is racist, abusive, vulgar, hateful, obscene, sexually oriented, or otherwise violative of any UK law."

I'm no expert on this but I would say the 'T' word could be associated with at least 4, possibly 5 of the above terms.

---

What on earth is racist, abusive, hateful, obscene or even particularly sexually orientated about a word that is affectionately used to refer to the female genitalia in some regional dialects of the UK? Vulgar perhaps but not even that particularly. I mean about half the population have female genitalia. How can that be derogative? There seem to be some narrow horizons taking small pleasures where they can find them in this thread lately. Time we all grew up?

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote Sue Dunnim:

---

I think it may help at this point if I quote specifically rule 2 in order to head any further rule infringements 'off at the pass', so to speak:

"Not to post material that is racist, abusive, vulgar, hateful, obscene, sexually oriented, or otherwise violative of any UK law."

I'm no expert on this but I would say the 'T' word could be associated with at least 4, possibly 5 of the above terms.

---

What on earth is racist, abusive, hateful, obscene or even particularly sexually orientated about a word that is affectionately used to refer to the female genitalia in some regional dialects of the UK? Vulgar perhaps but not even that particularly. I mean about half the population have female genitalia. How can that be derogative? There seem to be some narrow horizons taking small pleasures where they can find them in this thread lately. Time we all grew up?

---

"What on earth is...sexually orientated about a word that is affectionately used to refer to the female genitalia..."

Perhaps I'm just not very bright, but you're going to have to explain that in a little more detail I think. On the face of it, your sentence makes no sense whatsoever and seems a tad contradictory. But perhaps you're making a more subtle point that hasn't yet registered with me? Or is this an example of the new form of post-modern irony that I know is very popular amongst some students at the moment?

Quote Frisonic:

---

I mean about half the population have female genitalia. How can that be derogative?

---

- actually, I'm not sure that the medical / technical word used to describe female genitalia is - Twat.

I think there are a number of comprising elements of the female reproductive system, Vagina, Cervix, Uterus etc ...
I don't think Twat is in there ...

Despite Hugh's request to show some restraint with the name calling it has continued. And as discussion about the original topic has run its course it seems a suitable time to draw a line.

And it's good to see that so many of you are familiarising yourselves with the forum rules.

Andy

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.